The US says it has sent Iran a clear message, through dozens of damaging strikes on the country, that attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz will come with a heavy cost.
This week's American strikes, which have weakened Iran militarily, follow the apparent collapse of an interim ceasefire, with both sides accusing the other of breaching the agreement.
Talks towards a final settlement to the Iran war had already stalled and threats escalated in the lead-up to the exchange of fire.
Deal never fully implemented
Under the interim agreement, the two sides had agreed to stop fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The US ended a naval blockade on Iran and allowed Tehran to resume oil exports, while some frozen Iranian funds and assets were to be released.
Under the two-month plan, signed on June 17, Washington had issued approval for Iranian oil exports to continue until August 21.
But the agreement quickly ran into problems. Iran accused Israel of continuing attacks in southern Lebanon, arguing the plan was being weakened. Iran previously demanded that Israel withdraw from southern Lebanon and stop fighting Tehran-aligned Hezbollah, if the interim deal struck with the US was to progress.
But the bigger problem was, Tehran said, the agreement’s conditions were not being met. It pointed to Clause 13 of the memorandum, which says final talks can only begin after earlier steps are fulfilled — including the release of Iran's frozen funds and assets. This effectively gave it a reason to take a harder position.
Hormuz at centre of dispute
The main disagreement centred on Hormuz, where tensions rose after Oman and the UN announced an alternative maritime corridor to help evacuate stranded ships.
The strait falls within the territorial waters of both Oman and Iran.
Iran objected to the route in Omani waters. It said the agreement gave Tehran sole responsibility for managing the entire waterway and warned ships not to use unauthorised routes.
Days later, two vessels were attacked in the strait. The US blamed Iran and launched strikes on its southern coast. Tehran responded by targeting American bases in Bahrain and Kuwait. Both sides then agreed to restart talks.
Indirect technical talks were held in Qatar, but there was no agreement on Hormuz or the frozen funds and assets.
When three more ships were attacked in the waterway on Tuesday, tensions spiked again, leading to the latest US strikes.
What the strikes actually hit
The US said it hit about 170 Iranian targets over two days, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attack boats, coastal surveillance sites, missile and drone centres, naval systems, air defences and logistics networks.
The US also reportedly hit two railway bridges in northern Iran, showing the strikes went beyond only military infrastructure.
The attacks may have reduced Iran’s ability to quickly threaten shipping, at least in the short term, but the dispute is no longer only about individual attacks.
Iran argues security arrangements around the strait should reflect its regional interests, while the US and Gulf states say Hormuz must remain open to international shipping. This shows the disagreement is also about influence, security and control of the vital energy route.
What started as an effort to limit Iran’s missile and military capabilities has become a wider confrontation over Hormuz and the terms of the failed agreement.
Destroying assets does not change objectives
The US strikes may have damaged Iranian military assets, but they have not necessarily changed Tehran's overall strategy. Iran sees influence over Hormuz as an important source of power.
Strikes can degrade or destroy military assets, but they do not automatically alter political goals. Iran can continue pursuing the same objectives while using the argument over unmet conditions of the interim agreement as justification.
There are also questions over whether every Iranian escalation is directly ordered by its top leaders. Some elements within the IRGC may have acted alone during a period of heightened tensions surrounding late supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Reported US strikes on a railway bridge between Tehran and Mashhad, where Mr Khamenei is to be laid to rest on Thursday, could increase anger among hardliners and make future de-escalation more difficult.
Deterrence or wider escalation?
For Washington, the goal is not only punishment but also deterrence.
While US officials believe they still have leverage, with ships still traversing Hormuz, the risks remain high. Strikes inside Iran could allow hardliners to present the conflict as another example of foreign aggression.
The strikes could also deepen divisions in the country, however. If parts of the security establishment believe they can challenge the US without sparking a wider war, future escalation may become harder to control.
A decision by hardline factions to act independently could pull Tehran and Washington into a conflict neither side fully wants.
The failed talks in Qatar show diplomacy has not solved the two key disputes: control of Hormuz and the conditions for further negotiations. And without agreement on these, any ceasefire is likely to remain fragile.
The verdict, for now
The US has shown it can strike Iran and inflict major military costs without shutting down the strait.
The campaign has restored some level of deterrence and shown Washington still has military options, but destroying military assets does not resolve the main disputes.
The real test will come in the weeks ahead. If Iran stops attacking commercial shipping, keeps Hormuz open and allows progress on frozen assets, the US can argue its strategy succeeded.
If Tehran continues using maritime pressure, proxy attacks or missile threats while claiming its archfoe has failed to meet its obligations, Washington will face the harder question of whether more military action can achieve what the first strikes could not.
The latest strikes may have changed the military balance in the short term, but they have not yet changed the political situation.
